Perihelion advance

[oriel36]

Dgruss23

I had assumed that the point was quite clear or at least it should appear so.I had said to the original poster in the other thread that it is easier speaking of a greater rotation than galactic rotation rather than a universal 'center' not only because galactic structure and formation would appear to support a greater rotation but that recent data of 'accelerating' expansion would also support it,the analogy of hurricane development relates to the former but the latter is a far more difficult matter to express.

The difficulty is that cosmological modelling on a galactic scale may only be accomplished in principle rather than by observation because the scales involved are enormous,the astronomers such as Copernicus and Kepler could use the local stars as a reference for the motion of the primary planets in sorting out apparent motion from true motion however to use the true rotation of the local Milky Way stars as a reference against the remaining galaxies is far more difficult even if it is taken as a given that the local stars rotate around an axis.We can determine where the Milky Way axis is just as we can determine the heliocentric axis but from our position it appears that everything rotates around us,rather than call this an illusion Newton called this relative motion,valid up to a point but without the translation into true or absolute motion you would not have heliocentric modelling or his gravitation laws.

There is a tendency to pad language to make it appear profound but I am heading in the opposite direction,I am aware that the principle of cosmological modelling off the rotation of the local stars is difficult enough and admits no grandstanding,that being said,even it it is up for discussion I see many here adhere to the author of spacetime as he tethers the elliptical path of a planet to circumpolar motion and then paste a local 'warped space' solution on to this geocentricity.The point is that discussion on a greater rotation than galactic rotation and how to free up the necessary information does not look good for me while you can safely return to the concepts you adhere to.

Perhaps it is because consideration of a greater rotation than galactic rotation raises more possibilities than difficulties that some may find it appealing and particularly as a factor in galactic formation.I suspect that a physicist would be terrified if the poster who asked about the 'center' of the Universe followed up with the question as to how this fits in with the apparent motion of the galaxies to certain points in the cosmos such as the Great Attractor.

[dgruss23]

oriel36

Ok, now I see where you're coming from. You're right - identifying universal scale rotation would be a difficult problem indeed! I would think the cosmic microwave background might be the place to look for such a signal.

The point is that discussion on a greater rotation than galactic rotation and how to free up the necessary information does not look good for me while you can safely return to the concepts you adhere to.

Now wait a minute. I don't adhere to anything that doesn't have sound empirical support. I'm one of the last people here that would be categorized as someone that adheres strictly to the mainstream!

I would say the question of universal scale rotation can be tackled two ways. First you could look for empirical evidence that it is happening. But as you point out that would be observationally difficult. Second, you could identify a theory that predicts such rotation. From that there should be predictions as to the characteristics the rotation would impart upon the universe. That would hopefully lead to experiments that could test for the rotation.

Could you give me some insight as to what has led you to the hypothesis that the universe might be rotating? Is there a particular gravitational model or some observation you've been intrigued by?

[oriel36]

Dgruss23

"Now wait a minute. I don't adhere to anything that doesn't have sound empirical support. I'm one of the last people here that would be categorized as someone that adheres strictly to the mainstream! "

My apologises.

The empirical method is unsuitable for this type of reasoning for the same reason that the method of Roemer's who applied a non local geometric solution (the variation in the distance between Earth and Jupiter) to the anomalous motion of Io in terms of finite light distance there is no gravitational solution involved and neither is it required to infer a greater rotation than galactic rotation.

"I would say the question of universal scale rotation can be tackled two ways. First you could look for empirical evidence that it is happening. But as you point out that would be observationally difficult. Second, you could identify a theory that predicts such rotation. From that there should be predictions as to the characteristics the rotation would impart upon the universe. That would hopefully lead to experiments that could test for the rotation."

From my perspective, rotation is already built into the framework of the cosmic observation but it is a matter of translating 'acceleration' in accelerating expansion into rotation.Again,this is a contentious issue as in recognising how clocks measure increasing distance away from an axis (as with planetary geometry/longitude) increasing distance away from an axis of a rotating system can be misinterpreted as 'acceleration'.While the empirical method would look for a force to explain observed accelerating expansion the non local geometric solution would be a translation of 'acceleration' into rotation.


"Could you give me some insight as to what has led you to the hypothesis that the universe might be rotating? Is there a particular gravitational model or some observation you've been intrigued by?"

I have only gone so far as to say that galactic structure would indicate that there was a greater rotational influence on their formation, idealistically a gravitational physicist takes over here and attempts to figure out how the galaxies formed in a given evolutionary epoch with the influence of a greater rotation much as with the hurricane analogy that hurricanes structure and formation can't hold together without a greater rotation supplied by the planet (please,this is a loose analogy).

This is the endpoint of a long story going back 14 years when I was working on nonperiodic symmetry of Penrose tiles,the figures that the study was generating suggested a geometry with no suitable visible structure so I turned to the cosmic form which would support the geometry,namely Black holes as they are called.There is always a danger in saying too little as there is saying too much so I will only brifly mention where it surfaced without going through all the ins and outs of it.

The geometric structure involves two outer rings with a point of intersection in terms of stellar collapse,the work although copyrighted with only two graphic representations involved,one for the geometry of Penrose tiles/quasicrystals and one for the cosmic structure was left for what it is until the pictures of SN1987 showed up so having no facility availible to accept the work done 4 years previous,I celebrated in private.

In any case,the topic here is worth discussing even if it ends in disagreement and it is just a geometer's way of looking at things in contrast to the empirical way,once these methods were complimentary to each other but it seems no longer.

[Celestial Mechanic]

I guess the answer is in the framework of your response.I assure you that I have little regard for those who adhere to concepts which rely on linguistic or cheap imaging tricks to attain their objective of attaining some form of elitism,all the spacetime guy did was replace Newton's elitism with a worse form,at least Newton directed it to what he knew of astronomy and astronomers while the other guy pumps up the mathematicians against everyone else.

Ah, but if Newton too is guilty of "elitism", then why do you name Newton but not Einstein? A lot of posters here have disagreements in whole or in part with Einstein's work. I ask this now as a direct question: Why do you have such an animus toward Einstein that you refuse to name him?

Come on, you can do it. Sit down at your keyboard. Hold down the shift key and simultaneously press the "E" key. Release the shift key and press first "I", then "N", then "S", then "T", then "E" again (all unshifted, of course), then "I" and finally "N". There! I knew you could do it if you only put your mind to it!

[oriel36]

Celestial Mechanic

Did it ever cross your mind that I might wish to diffuse stereotyping and criticism to facilitate discussion that does not involve one way of looking at things and as much as I can, supply supporting historical documentation of the correspondence between astronomers whoes work complimented each other with a self correcting mechanism in place.Newton's work further complimented the insight of astronomers but as not all solutions for celestial motion and structure are gravitational,Roemer's for instance so there has to be some sort of balance restored.

To deflect criticism of Einstein it is necessary to note that physicists at the time were all too willing to have somebody say what they wanted to hear,it may have been good for the empirical method but looking at the means by which the motion of Mercury was isolated,it was truly awful for astronomy .Even today you can go outside and note the motion of Mars and see why tethering the path of Mars to the motion of the stars does'nt work.

This forum is not like the brawl of the sci.forums and it would be wrong of me to introduce contention leading to namecalling and so on,the purpose was to generate discussion rather than reactions but that is not always possible when there is only one show in town.In this case I will give.

[kilopi]

looking at the means by which the motion of Mercury was isolated,it was truly awful for astronomy .Even today you can go outside and note the motion of Mars and see why tethering the path of Mars to the motion of the stars does'nt work.

You're very wrong about that, of course. The mathematical models are not that oversimple.

This forum is not like the brawl of the sci.forums and it would be wrong of me to introduce contention leading to namecalling and so on,the purpose was to generate discussion rather than reactions but that is not always possible when there is only one show in town.

Perhaps you'd want to reconsider using the words "gruesome," "hilarious," "madness," or "mess" to describe mainstream physics then?

[oriel36]

Kilopi

"Perhaps you'd want to reconsider using the words "gruesome," "hilarious," "madness," or "mess" to describe mainstream physics then?"

Some of those words I used were directed at a specific passage which attempts to isolate the motion of Mercury,you simply cannot direct it towards anything other than that.

It is a matter of watching the path of Mars tonight and if you can determine its elliptical orbit by the procedure outlined below then good for you but what does it say about the work of Kepler.I can ask you to actually do as the author below requests but you would eventually use some of the words above and beyond this I would not go.It is your priviledge to designate a viewpoint as against mainstream physics but the specifics only allow for how true motions are derived from apparent motions and the following passage is not an accurate description of that.



"We must draw attention here to one of these deviations. According to Newton’s theory, a planet moves round the sun in an ellipse, which would permanently maintain its position with respect to the fixed stars, if we could disregard the motion of the fixed stars, themselves and the action of the other planets under consideration. Thus, if we correct the observed motion of the planets for these two influences, and if Newton’s theory be strictly correct, we ought to obtain for the orbit of the planet an ellipse, which is fixed with reference to the fixed stars."

[kilopi]

It is your priviledge to designate a viewpoint as against mainstream physics but the specifics only allow for how true motions are derived from apparent motions and the following passage is not an accurate description of that.

You've repeated that passage at least seven times, saying before each time "this guy was making astronomy up as he went along," "how much damage to astronomy can one person do," "astronomers who probably would be shocked if they came across the passage for the first time," "perhaps even you will have a good laugh at the audacity of it all," "Then you look at this mess," and "the following astronomical description is borderline if not true madness."

Yet you do not explain why you find it so hilarious. Why is that?

[russ_watters]

CM: Nice catch re, oriel not knowing the difference between "rotate" and "revolve."

My most basic problem with guys like this isn't their ideas (regardless of how flawed they are) its how they present their ideas. The two parts of the presentation I can't stand are intellectual arrogance and evasiveness. Someone who truly knows what they are talking about doesn't need to be arrogant about it. And someone with a point should be able to express that point clearly and concisely in one sentence.

[Chip]

...Someone who truly knows what they are talking about doesn't need to be arrogant about it. And someone with a point should be able to express that point clearly and concisely in one sentence.

Indeed. Notice for example how polite Einstein’s letter to Velikovsky is. (Quoted by Oriel36 at the start of this thread.) Einstein sets a good example for us of the proper tone and lucidity. :wink:

One can imagine Einstein’s colleague Kurt Godel on their daily walks at Princeton. Godel, a neurotic but brilliant mathematician, worked out a model of the universe derived from the general theory of relativity. He in fact derived an exact field equation, which calculates the force of a gravitational field.

Godel also modeled a very different universe wherein expansion is apparently an illusion created by a rotation (with no center.) For Godel, as galaxies rotate, their gravitational fields pull spacetime with them. Just as the observed universe expands space and time, Godel’s rotating universe creates spirals, and "timelike curves." His strange model, which is not mainstream, nevertheless does not contradict relativity theory. The point is, if Godel were posting "his" rotating universe theories here, I think he'd surely be very difficult to understand yet polite and professional nonetheless. 8-[

[kilopi]

His strange model, which is not mainstream, nevertheless does not contradict relativity theory.

I would consider it mainstream, in that it does not contradict accepted physics. Black holes may be strange, for instance, but they are not against the mainstream.

[Chip]

I would consider it mainstream, in that it does not contradict accepted physics. Black holes may be strange, for instance, but they are not against the mainstream.

OK. Let's replace "not mainstream" with "not as much discussed here as..." :wink:

[kilopi]

I would consider it mainstream, in that it does not contradict accepted physics. Black holes may be strange, for instance, but they are not against the mainstream.

OK. Let's replace "not mainstream" with "not as much discussed here as..." :wink:

OK.

"His strange model, which is not as much discussed here as..., nevertheless does not contradict relativity theory."

Now, what does that mean??

[Chip]

OK. Let's replace "not mainstream" with "not as much discussed here as..." :wink:

OK.
"His strange model, which is not as much discussed here as..., nevertheless does not contradict relativity theory."
Now, what does that mean??

"His strange model, which is not as much discussed here as (the concepts of Einstein and Newton,) nevertheless does not contradict relativity theory."*

*According to what I've read about Godel.
"Godel Meets Einstein : Time Travel in the Godel Universe" by Palle Yourgrau

[Celestial Mechanic]

Celestial Mechanic -- Did it ever cross your mind that I might wish to diffuse stereotyping and criticism to facilitate discussion that does not involve one way of looking at things and as much as I can, supply supporting historical documentation of the correspondence between astronomers whose work complimented each other with a self correcting mechanism in place?

And how does refusing to name Einstein contribute to this? Inquiring minds want to know! By the way, nice bit of padding!

Newton's work further complimented the insight of astronomers but as not all solutions for celestial motion and structure are gravitational, [Snip!].

Are you suggesting that electromagnetic forces are involved? I can see a small (very small!) role for magnetic forces, but gravity is still the dominant force.

To deflect criticism of Einstein it is necessary to note that physicists at the time were all too willing to have somebody say what they wanted to hear,

On the contrary, there were many for whom Einstein's work was not what they wanted to hear, Lienard for example.

Even today you can go outside and note the motion of Mars and see why tethering the path of Mars to the motion of the stars doesn't work.

And how do you think the coordinates are measured? The brighter planets, it is true, can be measured when they transit the meridian. The altitude suitably corrected for refraction combined with the latitude gives the declination, and the civil time converted to local sidereal time and corrected for nutation will give the right ascension. To be certain of the calibration, the transit times of nearby stars will usually be checked also. If you use photographic plates, you can compare it with the stars, allowing for any proper motion that the stars may have had. As a good introduction to observational astronomy, I recommend Spherical Astronomy by W.M. Smart. The book is over 50 years old, but not much will have changed since then, and besides, you quote far older stuff.
I leave you with this quote from Einstein:

"It required a severe struggle [for Newton] to arrive at the concept of independent and absolute space, indispensible for the development of his theory....Newton's decision was, in the contemporary state of science, the only possible one, and particularly the only fruitful one. But the subsequent development of the problems, proceeding in a roundabout way which no one could then possibly foresee, has shown that the resistance of Leibniz and Huygens, intuitively well-founded but supported by inadequate arguments, was actually justified....It has required no less strenuous exertions subsequently to overcome this concept [of absolute space]."

[oriel36]

Celestial Mechanic

Under no circumstances would I allow children to come under the influence of a person who fixes the path of a planet to the fixed stars and then requests his readers to ignore the influence of the motion of the fixed stars,turn it what way you will but in 1920 the motion of the fixed stars is circumpolar motion which reduces to geocentricity.

Now as regard that quotation.


"It required a severe struggle [for Newton] to arrive at the concept of independent and absolute space, indispensible for the development of his theory....Newton's decision was, in the contemporary state of science, the only possible one, and particularly the only fruitful one. But the subsequent development of the problems, proceeding in a roundabout way which no one could then possibly foresee, has shown that the resistance of Leibniz and Huygens, intuitively well-founded but supported by inadequate arguments, was actually justified....It has required no less strenuous exertions subsequently to overcome this concept [of absolute space]."

The above is complete and utter rubbish,both historically and from the statements of Newton himself,great if you want to sell a spacetime theory at the expense of Newton but astronomically incompetent.

Like absolute/relative time which is an expression of the Equation of Time,absolute and relative space is the difference between geocentric observations and heliocentric modelling.

"Relative and absolute space are the same in figure and magnitude but
do not remain numerically the same" Principia.

"PHĆNOMENON V.
Then the primary planets, by radii drawn to the earth, describe areas
no wise proportional to the times; but that the areas which they
describe by radii drawn to the sun are proportional to the times of
description.

For to the earth they appear sometimes direct, sometimes stationary,
nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are always seen
direct, and to proceed with a motion nearly uniform, that is to say, a
little swifter in the perihelion and a little slower in the aphelion
distances, so as to maintain an equality in the description of the
areas. This a noted proposition among astronomers, and particularly
demonstrable in Jupiter, from the eclipses of his satellites; by the
help of which eclipses, as we have said, the heliocentric longitudes
of that planet, and its distances from the sun, are determined."
Principia

http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/phaenomena.htm


"And how do you think the coordinates are measured? The brighter planets, it is true, can be measured when they transit the meridian. The altitude suitably corrected for refraction combined with the latitude gives the declination, and the civil time converted to local sidereal time and corrected for nutation will give the right ascension. To be certain of the calibration, the transit times of nearby stars will usually be checked also. If you use photographic plates, you can compare it with the stars, allowing for any proper motion that the stars may have had."

Motion of the stars,proper or improper, means circumpolar motion in 1920 and its means circumpolar motion now so you are still stuck with geocentricity and one thing you don't do is paste a local solution on a geocentric observation which is what spacetime does.If you are happy with spacetime then have a ball but I assure you that when Newton defined absolute/relative time,space and motion he had the work of the great astronomers before him.

His absolute/relative time is the easiest to understand as the Equation of Time,a commonplace astronomical correction in his era and later a navigational correction but then you see the guys in the late 19th and early 20th century who had'nt a clue what Newton was refering to.

http://www.blueberry-brain.org/chaos...cs/tsld007.htm

I simply do not have the time to waste on people who did not understand the methods of astronomers and what they thought Newton said,you may, but that is your priviledge

[kilopi]

Under no circumstances would I allow children to come under the influence of a person who fixes the path of a planet to the fixed stars and then requests his readers to ignore the influence of the motion of the fixed stars,turn it what way you will but in 1920 the motion of the fixed stars is circumpolar motion which reduces to geocentricity.

Ah, I see now.

The passage that you've quote before is:

"We must draw attention here to one of these deviations. According to Newton’s theory, a planet moves round the sun in an ellipse, which would permanently maintain its position with respect to the fixed stars, if we could disregard the motion of the fixed stars, themselves and the action of the other planets under consideration. Thus, if we correct the observed motion of the planets for these two influences, and if Newton’s theory be strictly correct, we ought to obtain for the orbit of the planet an ellipse, which is fixed with reference to the fixed stars".

So, the problem that you have with it is that you think Einstein was referring to the daily motion of the stars around the Earth when he talked about "if we could disregard the motion of the fixed stars"?

I don't read it that way myself.

[oriel36]

Kilopi

The guy did'nt know enough about the Equaion of Time (the distinction between absolute time and relative time) or heliocentric modelling from geocentric observations(the difference between absolute space and relative space) to know that when he fixed the elliptical path of a planet permanently to the 'fixed stars' and then goes on to speak of the "motion of the fixed stars" he does'nt know it is a property of the axial rotation of the Earth.

It does'nt take a genius to figure out that if you get rid of the distinction between observed geocentric observation and heliocentric modelling (Newton's distinction between relative space and absolute space) that when you try to accomplish heliocentric modelling via astronomy the result will be hilarious,and with that passage in mind, so it is.

Now, I don't particularily like the definitions of Newton but I do understand where he is coming from in terms of the astronomy in his era,look at the motion of Mars tonight and it is mixed up in a complicated way with the motion of the Earth,both are orbiting the Sun which is out of view from the observer,so to really appreceate the work of Kepler you need that all important glance which all the models in the world can't give you,this glance is what makes everyone an astronomer but you can't get it from a book nor can anyone pass it on or express it fully nor can all the pretensious linguistic conceal it and I assure you that those passages in Newton will light up with a freshness that has'nt been seen in centuries including those places where he is wrong.

http://pratt.edu/~arch543p/readings/Newton.html

For the purpose of cosmological modelling off the rotation of the local stars,Roemer's insight is more important,an insight which came a decade before Newton wrote the words above.If you wish to remain with spacetime I am not about to convince you that you should'nt but it is required that I first find a participant here who is willing to set aside the spacetime concept and return to the insight of Roemer in regard to the effects of finite light distance on how we observe supernova and the difference from when they are observed to when they actually occured as a cosmological marker for their parent galaxy.It is not for everyone,that much I understand, but objections should not be directed against discussion because it does not suit contemporary ways of looking at the structure and motion of the cosmos .

There is no facility to discuss the issue but the advantage is that there is neither novice or expert on this matter,nobody is being set on a pedestal and there are no ivory tower ,peer approved establishment sanctioned trickle down physics to deal with,it is a blank sheet on which anyone can write but it does have historical precedence in terms of a transition from heliocentric modelling to cosmological modelling with some of the elements of the old traditions retained.To get to those elements it is required to bypass the relativistic epoch in those matters where it imposes on astronomy and celestial structure and motion,understand and update Newton and you will know what to jettison and what to retain for applying gravitational solutions or geometric solutions where appropriate.

If you choose to reply let it be on matters which can be dealt with productively and not as an apologist or cannon fodder for 'experts' who know no better.

[kilopi]

The guy did'nt know enough about the Equaion of Time (the distinction between absolute time and relative time) or heliocentric modelling from geocentric observations(the difference between absolute space and relative space) to know that when he fixed the elliptical path of a planet permanently to the 'fixed stars' and then goes on to speak of the "motion of the fixed stars" he does'nt know it is a property of the axial rotation of the Earth.

I now can see why you think the passage is hilarious, but I think it is a misunderstanding on your part.

It does'nt take a genius to figure out that if you get rid of the distinction between observed geocentric observation and heliocentric modelling (Newton's distinction between relative space and absolute space) that when you try to accomplish heliocentric modelling via astronomy the result will be hilarious,and with that passage in mind, so it is.

I've seen this before. Someone misreads a passage, makes wild assumptions about what the writer was thinking, then comes to the conclusion that the writer was horribly wrong, when in fact it was just a misinterpretation of the writing.

[oriel36]

The insight of Roemer is most important for it deals with how finite light distance effects where we see things against something with a steady motion ,in this case the rotation of the local Milky Way stars.

The previous posting was badly written for Roemer deals with the motion of Io. A contemporary developed form of this insight should be directed toward supernova data as a marker for a parent galaxy,the rest I have explained with no need to repeat it.

[Celestial Mechanic]

[Snip!]My most basic problem with guys like this isn't their ideas (regardless of how flawed they are) its how they present their ideas. The two parts of the presentation I can't stand are intellectual arrogance and evasiveness. Someone who truly knows what they are talking about doesn't need to be arrogant about it. And someone with a point should be able to express that point clearly and concisely in one sentence.

Two examples of what you're talking about:

If you choose to reply let it be on matters which can be dealt with productively and not as an apologist or cannon fodder for 'experts' who know no better.

I simply do not have the time to waste on people who did not understand the methods of astronomers and what they thought Newton said, you may, but that is your priviledge[sic!]

You shall know a leopard by its spots.

[Celestial Mechanic]

Under no circumstances would I allow children to come under the influence of a person who fixes the path of a planet to the fixed stars and then requests his readers to ignore the influence of the motion of the fixed stars, turn it what way you will but in 1920 the motion of the fixed stars is circumpolar motion which reduces to geocentricity.

Come on! Give the people in 1920 a little bit of credit! They knew as well as you and I know that the Earth rotates about its axis, causing an apparent (notice, I said apparent) motion about the celestial poles. This motion is much more uniform than time kept by a sundial, which requires the use of the Equation of Time as a correction. The rotation is so close to being uniform that coordinate systems can be based on it.

People in 1920 also knew that the stars have additional motion against that background called "proper motion". The proper motion is nothing more than the projection of the transverse component of the star's orbit about the galactic center (your "galactic rotation") against our sky. In fact, your idol Newton also appreciated this. In at least three of the "Phaenomena" on the page that you link to, Newton himself says "if the stars be fixed". Evidently he did not believe the stars to be truly immobile any more than I do or the people in 1920 did.

So, why do you cut Newton slack that you refuse to do for Einstein? Why do you still refuse to name Einstein? Also, why do you not call his theories by their rightful and accepted names, instead always referring to them as "spacetime"? Why the incredible, willful, and vindictive attitude towards Einstein and his work? It doesn't have anything to do with his ethnicity or religious affiliation, by any chance? I sincerely hope not.

[oriel36]

Celestial Mechanic

Perhaps many here learned about Newton's absolute and relative time,space and motion through relativity and have just come across the original manuscript for the first time,as the distinction between absolute and relative time is the Equation of Time,a novice astronomer or a proficient astronomer would disagree with Mach who had'nt the slightest idea that relative time/absolute time refers to the astronomical correction employed by astronomers and navigators.Once you know that it is the Equation of Time that Newton is expressing,it is a simple matter of working out why relative time refers to external observed motion and absolute time does not ,as there is no observed equable motion corresponding to 24 hours per 360 degrees.

The motion of the Sun is a relative motion giving an inequality from noon to noon,this is called relative time,as clocks and longitude coordinates are fixed to the planet it is not at all difficult to figure out why Newton defined absolute time as refering to no external motion (again there is no external motion corresponding to 24hrs/360 degrees)but he did not say it was independent of the contents of the universe.

This Mach guy had no idea that the Equation of Time was the single most important correction an astronomer and mariner had to make,the poor guy thinks it is some airy-fairy idea that Newton came up with and nothing in Newton's writings suggest that he was anything other than a practical man.

http://www.blueberry-brain.org/chaos...cs/tsld007.htm


"I. Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature flows equably without regard to anything external, and by another name is called duration: relative, apparent, and common time, is some sensible and external (whether accurate or unequable) measure of duration by the means of motion, which is commonly used instead of true time; such as an hour, a day, a month, a year......Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the equation or correlation of the vulgar time. For the natural days are truly unequal, though they are commonly considered as equal and used for a measure of time; astronomers correct this inequality for their more accurate deducing of the celestial motions. It may be, that there is no such thing as an equable motion, whereby time may be accurately measured.


http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/definitions.htm

If you believe that absolute time,which is one half of the Equation of Time ,has no practical value you are leaving out the best part of astronomical,practical,geographical,nautical and scientific history,the following article sums up just about everything I have said on the matter.

"The log was kept in ship's time, that is, the local apparent time,
adjusted at intervals to the change of longitude: and by old practice
an adjustment was made at noon, when the officer taking the latitude
sight called "Twelve o'clock, Sir," and the Captain said "Make it so,"
(though the actual observations for local time were necessarily made
morning and afternoon). If it were necessary to establish the accurate
time of an event we should have to enquire more particularly whether
the time of the nautical day was on that ship carried on from the noon
on which it began, or adjusted to the noon on which it ended, or
perhaps altered during the night from one to the other, as is more or
less the present practice in merchant ships, though H.M. Navy keeps
Standard Time. In default of better information we may without serious
error (in days of sail) take the recorded hour as in the apparent time
of the meridian of longitude mentioned in the account, and for form's
sake apply the equation of time to reduce to civil time of the
meridian"

I have no objections if you adhere to concepts which are based on misinterpretation,unfortunately I have to operate with a common vocabulary based on Newton and these are the cards I am dealt with ,in this respect I am the one with the problem as the basis for more productive work emerges from a developed form of Roemer's insight in seperating true structure and motion of the cosmos from observed apparent motion and structure via the effects of finite light distance on observation.